Jabbles
The purchased forest (15k hectares, 37k acres) is therefore ~1.3% of the region.
> Weighted mean detector score 0.5307
Does it mean that that passage would be rated a 53% chance of being watermarked? So you would need a passage 10x as long to be reasonably sure of providence?
a) it is possible to construct such a scanner
b) the results of a scan would be able to diagnose anything
c) the false-positive rate would be low enough to make this useful
But it is probably very good as a source of speculation to hype the valuation of the company, because iff the above issues are solved, then this could be very valuable.
I am annoyed by the insistence that the value of this company comes from something that no one has been able to show is possible yet without multiplying it by the obvious risk factor. And they seem to have got other companies like Alphabet[1] and Anthropic to publicize the idea, to give it more credibility.
I do not want my pension to automatically buy shares at $1T, but it looks like it will have no choice.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/science/google-spacex-talks-explore-...
[2] https://spacenews.com/anthropic-to-consider-using-spacex-orb...
Can you link to a source?
That certainly is controversial. I don't think many people would consider anyone who is fluent to only be B2.
[PDF] https://www.airfranceklm.com/sites/default/files/2026-02/202...
- Cattle release methane
- Forests are burnt to make room for crops/grazing
- Fertilizer for crops for cattle produces nitrous oxide
I do not claim this adds up to 60%, but to suggest it is zero is incorrect.
re: "GR environments (such as geostationary satellites)" - a geostationary orbit (or any orbit) is not an environment to test the interaction of GR and QM - it is a place to test GR on its own, as geostationary satellites have done. In order to test a theory of everything, the gravity needs to be strong enough to not be negligible in comparison to quantum effects, i.e. black holes, neutron stars etc. your example (1) is therefore a much better answer than (2)
a) it's $800B
b) this is the largest such selloff since April
Do you have a citation for "weeks away"? Wikipedia only says "within one year": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_progr...
Is this opinion shared by others?
That 100x zoom looks a bit... sloppy...
The car has one wing mirror and the rear tire is wider than the front. Edit: this might be real, see child comments.
Is there someone who knows more about cars who can confirm that this is in fact, not real?
Is this really the best example usecase they can think of? How often does an individual call an airline? I'm sure in aggregate they get a lot of calls, but I don't think I've ever had to.
It just seems really weird that this is the top example of on-device AI. The other examples mentioned, like "finding the right photos to share with a friend", seem more relatable.
Doesn't Zuckerberg have majority control?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(music)#Usage_and_trends
When you say:
"The shell games are:
1. claiming it is a proton collider"
it seems to me that you're implying that Sabine is not disclosing the fact that it's a two stage project. And I'm pointing out that it's one of the first things she says in her video.
And it doesn't have to be physics, it could be cancer research, or not even research: each country involved could upgrade their sewage system instead.
But Sabine doesn't have to have all the answers to be right to point out that there's an enormous conflict of interest if you ask particle physicists whether they'd like $40B. Of course they'll say yes.
It's unfair to merely critique the headline. If you do not wish to watch the video, here is a transcript: https://www.youtube-transcript.io/videos/elvEcWc7U7c
"This is very important work." is just an opinion.
"The more precise you nail down these uncertainties, the more theorists can do to verify their work, allowing the experimentalists to know where to look for new stuff, if any." Sabine's point is that there are countless theories and parameters that can be changed to fit any measurement. New results will eliminate some, but it will not reduce the total number of possible theories, as others will be constructed to fit the results without having any reason to think one is more true than another.
I'm sure that if you asked a range of physicists if _their_ area of research should receive more funding instead of the FCC, you would see less support for the FCC.
So we, as outsiders, are stuck not knowing what to believe - and ultimately an outsider, a politician, must make the decision for funding.